UrtM
Eflrtra
Superfund
Record of Decision:
PB66-224920
Taylor Borough, PA
(Second Remedial Action, 03/17/86)
-------
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
iHttH ntd AnoucnoM OR tk* /<>u» btfan eomflittixgt
EPA/ROD/R03-86/020
SUPBRFUND RECORD OP DECISION
Taylor Borough, PA
(Second Remedial Action)
1. AUYHOMISI
MAFQRMIM4 OROANlCATIQI | NAMS AM
Same as box 12.
JO AOORCM-
12. SPONSORING AOSNCY NAMS ANO AOORSSS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
March 17 f 1986
S. MR'ORMINO ORGANIZATION COOS
S. HR'ORMINO ORGANIZATION RCPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM SLBh
INT NO.
ii. CONTNACT/4RANT NO.
13. TYM Of RIPOAT ANO PSRIOO COVIHC U
Pinal ROD Report
800/00
IV. SUPPUSMSMTARY NOTSS
The Taylor Borough site i
Pennsylvania. The site is si
the site is a series of unde
ceased in 1968, the topograp
between steep slopes of mine
In June 1985, a Record of
a decision on ground water at
collected in April 1985 were
water conditions was also ne<
In the June 1985 ROD, ref
based on the analysis of aam;
the Ri, the data validation
accuracy. Additionally, the
identify any contamination.
has been documented, there i
however, a monitoring prograi
meet this objective, existin
(wells IB, 2C, 3C, 4C, SB, 6,
(See Attached Sheet)
IT.
located in the
A abandoned land]
eg round mines, i
by of the site «
spoil piles and
Decision. (ROD) \
etion because ant
not available.
aded because of i
s-rence is made t<
pies collected f :
review found that
two subsequent t
Since no release
s no need foe gr<
m is warranted b
g monitoring wel.
A, 7C, 70, 8B) si
MY WORDS ANO OG
. DESCRIPTORS
Record of Decision
Taylor Borough, PA (Second Remedial Action)
Contaminated Media s Hone - no observed
release
Key contaminants) 3/A
S. DISTRIBUTION STATIMSNT
Borough of Taylor in Lacka
Eill located in a strip mir
la a result of the landfill
insists of relatively rolli
unreclaimed strip mines.
*as approved for the site.
ilytical results for ground
Additional consideration c
jnusual hydcogeologic condi
3 a release of contaminants
:om Well 3C in September IS
t the reported results are
sampling efforts that were
i of aite contaminants to t
Mind water remedial action
9 verify that no release it
Is in the coal seams under]
tiould be monitored on a sea
tCUDMNT ANALYSIS
b.lOINTIPIIRS/OPSN INOSO TIR.MS
IS. SECURITY CLASS fjlut/ttpcrtt
None
20. SSCURITY CLASS iTItitftftt
None
*
wanna County^
le. underlying
. operation, which
MQ terrain
The ROD deferred
1 water samples
if site ground
.tions.
i into a coal seam
184. As noted in
of questionable
attempted did not
:he ground water
at this timai
i occurring. To
.ying the site ..
liannual baa is for
e. COSATI Fwto/Gtowp
21* NO* QP ^AOIS
22. PHICI
mm Z2M.I («. 4.17)
COITION i» »«»Ot«T«
-------
EPV ROD/SO 3-8 6/0 20
Taylor Borough, PA
(Second Remdial Action)
16. ABSTAACT (continued)
all priority pollutant volatile organics and Hazardous Substance List metals
for* at a minimum, five years after the surface remedial action is
completed. It is estimated that the current cost to conduct one round of
sampling and analysis for metals and volatiles at the monitoring wells
identified is $8,000, or $16,000 for semiannual monitoring.
-------
RECORD OF DECISIO~
R~~EDIAL ALTER~ATIVE S£LECTI0~
51 te:
Taylor Borough SIte, Lackawanna County, Penn$ylvanla
Documents Reviewed:
1 am basing my decision principally on the followi~g documents
describing the analysis of cost effectiveness and feasibility of re~edial
alt~rnatlves for the Taylor Borough Si~e. Unless otherYise specified,
the underlying technical information is included in these rep0rts:
"Feasibility Study Report", (Draft), Taylor Borough Site, Lackawanna
Coupty, Pennsylvania, (~US Corp. May, 1985)
"Remedial Investigation Report", (Draft), Taylor Borough Site,
Lackavanna County, Pennsylvania, (~US Corp. May, 1985)
Summary of Remedial Alternati~e Selection
Recommendations by the Pennsylv&nia Depart~ent of Environmencal
Resources
Taylor Borough, Record of Der.ision dated June 23, 1985.
Staff summaries and recommendations..
Description of the Selected Remp.dy:
Since no release of sit~ contaminants to the ground water ha~ b~en
documented, there is no need for ground water remedial action at this
time; however, a monitoring program is warranted to verify over time
that no release is occurring. To meet this objec~ive existing Monitoring
wells f~ the coal seams underlyln~ the site (wells 1B, 2C 3C, 4C, 5B,
6A, 7C, 70, 88) should be monitored on a semi-annual basis for all pri-
ority pollutant volatile organics and Hazarduus Substance List metals
for, at a minimum, five years after the surface remedial action required
by the June 28, 1985 Record of Der.ision is co~pleted. The Na:ional
Contingency Plan.would per~it the period to be extended if necessar1
to prot~ct public health or the env1roncent.
Declarations
Consistent with the Co:nprehensive Environme:1tal Respon!ll!, Compl!nsacion
and Liability Act 0: 198~ (CERCLA) and the National Co~tingency Plan (~O
C.F.R. Part 300), I ~~ve determined that the monit~r1ng activities described
above together with proper operation and aaintenan.:e constitute a cost-
effective r~medy which mitigates and minimizes Jamage to pub11~ health,
welfare, and the environment.
The State of Pennsylvania h~s heen con!lulted and agr~es with the
approved remedy. Following the implementation of the remedial ~cti~n8
identified in the Record of Decision signed on June 28, 1985, the mon-
itoring activities id~ntified by this Rl!cord of Decision .111 be required
, :
-------
\
\
to ensur~ the continu~j ef~~ctlv~oess and level of ~rotection of th~
r~~edy. ~'ese activities ~ill be consid~r~d part of the approved action
and eli~ible for Trust Fund mont.s for a period ot one year.
I have determined that the action beirig ta~en 15 appropriate when
balanced aga1nst the ava1la~11tty of Trust Fund monl~s for use at other
sites.
.'). . -. I
-, .I /' / \' /
: ,'I.-
Date
b/ I //~~/
" . / / '., : ) . . J I. .
""\",,!.....rtf:. ,,' , ' i,.,'! '-' ~I ). -. '-I I
/t,. /. Jal'!les M. Setf ;;
,,. &.... Regional Administrator,' '
..-/ r <-- EPA Reg10n II I .
I
I
-------
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Taylor Borough Sice
Description and Current Site Status
The Taylor Borough site is located in the Borough of Taylor in
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. The site is an abandoned landfill
located in a strip mine. Underlying the site is a series of underground
mines. As a result of the landfill operation, which ceased in 1963, the
topography of the site consists of relatively rolling terrain between
steep slopes of mine spoil piles and unraclained strip pits. Figure 1
Is a site location map.
At the site there were six (6) surface drum disposal araas, as identified
on the site' map (Figure 2). During the Fall of 1983 EPA implemented an
immediate removal action and removed approximately 1,200 drums from
these six areas.
From March 1984 to May 1985 EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation
.and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the site. The remedial investigation
documented soil contamination in five of the former surface drum disposal
areas, surface water contamination in two small ponded areas (ponds I
and 2 in Figure 3) and approximately 125 crushed and intacc drums and
remnants remaining on the surface or partially burled. An extensive
hydrogeologic investigation was also conducted. A feasibility study was
performed to examine various alternatives to remediate the site contami-
nation. Based on conclusions drawn from the RI/FS and with the concurrence
of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER), the EPA
Region III Administrator signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on June 28,
1985 which called for the following remedial actions:
1. Removal and offsite disposal of the approximately 125 drums and
remnants.
2. Collection and treatment of contaminated water in Ponds 1 and 2.
3. Excavation and offsice disposal of contaminated soils, sediments
and waste* from former drum storage areas 1 and 2, Ponds 1 and 2.
4. Proper backfilling and placement of a 24 inch soil cover over
the area including and between dru.n storage areas 3 and 6 and
over area 4.
The June 1985 ROD deferred a decision on ground water action. At the
time the ROD was signed, analytical results for ground water samples
collected In April 1985 were not available. In addition, because of the
unusual hydrogeologic conditions at the site, as further discussed below,
additional consideration of site ground water conditions was needed.
Site Ceology/Hydrogeology
The municipal l.indfill is located in a strip mine which sits over an
extensive series of abandoned underground mines. Due to the extensive
mining, ground water beneath the site has been significantly altered in
-------
//
,/
I~'
,-
/
,.
,-
~--.,,-
.
'.
.'
/
i,-,"
,,'
i
.' /'
I'
, ...
r
./
"
)
'J
)
~i
") ~
"
2
ReptOdUC8dfrom
be., .V8t'.DIe copy,
-.:...
"",
--
".
"
," ,
LOCATION AND VICINITY MAPS
TAYLOR BOROUGH SITE. TAYLOR BOROUGH. PA
SCALE: 18: 2000'
FIGURE 1
"
, '
"",
i"
/. ~
/'1 .
, /- : ~ ,1
i.'
,
,
.' ,
"-
~I" ":"..
, (
"'~:.. \;,
.: .
I' . / '1.
. .:..-.
I
--.---- -
"/
',"
,
f:
/
..
,',
. (....
-------
T~^> *
V.
G
/V-Vi\
%w»«,7-.V- - "->/- v
7*>- ' V _ - : : ' ^.J- "
*
X«, ' »" * A'
-*J«t s^ j V « \
+f\' AX'"',' ,-x " ' ^?5r~.i:
-*S^*
r ^|M
*
- ... . *
<
* * A ' ^ \ ' ^"
' * ' '^ "* \ '' "*~* """"^i
*S^' » J
" v^-^
' ' ' - ^,
/ ft * \*
' 'y >> c^_ J^_~_- .: \" . '
j *? ?-jj. » .«-'- ^ n t^^
1
t
1*
i-\
<,
. f
*
**
"1
- -.:!
, Ij
t
r
If
IEGENO
1 A|
' ' ' ' ' \ * * II
*- ' ' ^ . . . * " "
K4£ K 1 -* .1
. , ,,.y >
..-,., » , ij|!«
; '-:-: ~..
-:'/' s i
/' (, ) . .
' Illl -. J
(1
*:'/
-
,. L .*
; \
f ' '
}l
V J|-
1 "
i:»-!' -; ,
-N. JUYIKIIIIUII nuns o> II
»,! >WWN SlXKM UttuM ,1 1 1.
*/ Sf,**4 «.,« (I ,. || f^>
~" ^A-
H" "''
. n if . ,, --.I .
v-,,,.^- v .%- *=-
SURFACE DRUMS STORAGE ARF AS
TAYLOR nOHOur.H SITE. TAYI OR BOROUGH. PA
4OO O
J
V »l I Ml (
FIGURE 2
-------
^-\,::.;-:
SNAKE MOUNTAIN
UNRECL*HiC0 STUB*
MINE PIT
RELOCATED ST. JOHNS CRCEK
,. .^-DEPRESSION No
DECLAIMED STRIP MINE ANO/i ANO'ILL OPERATIONS
t ->'
j J ,-DEPNESSK-H^
.r^'7 ^ ««'1 «-
,
fl-M'ONO :»«»
>
. STRIP MINE AREA
POND No 9
PROPOSED BALL flELD/RECREATIONAL AREA
EXISTING CONDITIONS
TAYLOR nOROUGM SITE. TAYLOR ROROUGII, PA
Reproduced Irom
4OO
i A'. ' IKi/.N
V «l I HI 11 I I
FIGURE 3
400
-------
5
both qualit~. and yield. Bt!drock beneath the sit.. hils naturally-occurring
fractures; howeve~, mine volJs have caused further rock fracturing and
subsid~nce which has impacted ground water flow patter~s. Unconsolidated
50il deposits have been dis~urbed through surface mining operations. As
a result, the hydrogeologic characteristics ha\'e been s'\!,stantially alt=~ed
from natural conditions.
T~e RI found that major aquifers that may have existed prier to
mining have been dewittered. There are some p~rched water zones within
the site area controll~d by the presence or low-permeability tlll deposi~s
or strip mine spoil containing varying quantities of clay and silt
material. There 1s not, however, a continuous ground wat~r level across
t,'1e site.
Water enter-1ng the si te and movi:'lg in the subsu~face as gr'Jund w,ater
flows to a vast mine pool underlying the Lac~awanna Valley. The water
moves by ~1ther vertically migrating through fractured rock and ~in~
openings (air- shafts, slope openings, unsealed boreholes) or- by following
geologic str-ucture and inter-cepti~g the mine pool. The mine pool is
approximately 300 to 350 feet below the site surface. Based on the Ground
Water Protection Strategy categories the ~Lne pool has the characteristics
of an unpotable Class 3 aquifer because of mine draina~e c~ntami~atio~.
Approxi~ately four- miJes downgraJient of the site the ~l:'1e pool dischar-g~s
. to the Lackawanna River.
Figure 4 shows the locations of monitoring wells at the ~L:~ and the
loc3tion of coal seams and Figure 5'is a gener-alizecl geologic cross
section of the site. Chapter) of the Remedial Investigation Report
contains an extensive discussion of th£ site geology ana hydr-cgeology.
Grcund Water Analvtical Results
In the June 28, 1ge5 ROD refer-ence is made to a release of contami-
nants into a coal seam monitored by Well 3C hilsed on the analysls of
samples :oilected from this well in Septemher 19~~. As not~d i~ the Rt
repor-t, the data validation r~view of these results found that the r~-
port~d result~ are of questionable acclJr~.:y. .~dditionally. the t'.,o
subsequent sa~pling effor-ts that w~re attempted did n~t id~~tify any
contamination. In ~ovember 1984 an attempt ~as ~ade to sarnpl~ th~ well
but, because of the aquifer- dewater-ing discuss~d abov~. th~r-e was insuf-
ficient water In the well to collect a sample of adequat~ ~olu~e for
analysis. Sa~ples collected in April 1985 jid not contain any ~f the
compounds r~ported in the September ~~~ples.
S.1sed on the facts that (1) the validity of the analytical results
from the samples collected In Sept~mber 1984 Is questionable, and (2) sub-
seque~t sampling effor-ts at this well did not identify contamlnatio~, an
3d~quately documented and verified r-el~~se or conr.aminants to ground wat=r
at Well 3C has not occurred.
The analytIcal results from the other well~, ~s discuss~d i~ the June,
1985 ROD, found no sigrttficant ~ontamlnatlon. The only organics rt!ported
were low parts per- hillion levels of methylene chloride and bls(2-et!lylhexyl)
phthalate. There was 00 apparent pattern to the det~ctiQn of these
-------
/ '
^'OUC-' N--«-
* '
FOOT
COAL SEAM
<** 1* f ft WifttlttM|ftff.*| || ft f
o
I'MiHMMAIt | fHH frt If'HMII* %|NtT Ml
**.'.t»t»«Mi> tu*
A t»tf*'t Ml fMW I
"* >
I*MM«IH«H (U**| ***, |flC«fHM( U* SIMM* HIS I«lif N > HUM 1
nun- I til r*i»',* MritON* * , MfciHii s l
I M I <»«*%% Mi I«M» »', »»Gl*l 4 >
1 Sll LHO;% U( IHJN i tf.ll«UM| S « -
4 Mf
-------
....
...
...
... 100
.
z
0
t=
~ 600
...
..
...
~
400
XX>
Af'PRO)lIMATE 1.IMns Of
TAYLOR UOiOUGIt SI1E
NEW COUNTY COAL
. STHIPPlf
81G COAL
STRIP pIT
DIAMOND AND ROCK COAL
STRIP!': J
L
IUOO
900,
LEGEtiQ .
- APPROklMATf lOCATION
Of COAL SUM
f)(IS'...NG GRADE-
~~~~~~LIZEQJ~~O~Q.91~- CRO~.~ S~CTIO~
TAYI.Or. non()um~ S~TE. TAYL9~ 39RQ~G..'. p~~
fOUl fOOT
---
()fAMONO
ROCK
BIG
NEW COUN'Y
CI.ARK
NO.1 DUHMOH£
NC.2 f)U"MOHE
NO ) OUNMCIfI[
THIS CRO~S SECTION ADAPTlO rHOM M.NE
MAl' INfORMATION ON fiLE AT HIe HI ,..CI::
Of SUHfACE MINING, WllKt: S -HAwn, "A.
fIGUR~_~-
000
900
800
10() ....
600
.~
400
.soo
-------
compounds. Additionally both compounds are connon sampling and/or
analytical laboratory contaminants (rnethylene chloride is used to wash
bottles and bis (2-ethylhexyl) pthalace is a common plastisizer).
The data suggests that no release to ground water occurred at this
site durlng the RT.
Recommended Alternative
Since no release has been documented at the site, there is no need
for ground water remedial action at this time, thus a no action alternative
is recommended. However, a monitoring program is warranted to verify
over time that no release is occurring. To meet this objective existing
monitoring wells in the coal seams underlying the site (wells 13, 2C,
3C, '*C, 53, 6A, 7C, 70, SB) should be monitored on a semiannual basis
for all priority pollutant volatile organics and Hazardous Substance
List metals for, at a .nlninum, five years after the surface remedial
action is completed. The National Contingency plan would permit the
period to be extended if necessary to protect public health and or the
environment.
Costs and Schedule
It is estimated that the current cost to conduce one round of
sampling and analysis for metals and volatiles for the monitoring wells
identified above is 58,000, or 316,000 for semi-annual monitoring. As-
suming a discount rate of 10?, the present worth costs of a five year
semi-annual monitoring program will be approximatley 567,000.
This program will require 10 rounds of sampling spaced approximately
six m-iTvhs apart. The sampling should be conducted in the early spring
(March or April) and the end of summer (August or September) of each year
because this will provide data from wet weather conditions and dry weather
conditions. The Pennsylvania D5R is prepared to implement :he Operation &
Maintenace requirements of this remedy.
Consistency with other Environmental Lav?
40 O.F.R. Part 264 Suboart F requires ground water monitoring after
closure of a hazardous waste facility. The RCRA regulations do not,
however, ideally fit the conditions at this site. The complex natural
geology, strip mining, deep mining and landfilling have altered natural
flows and dewatered natural aquifers such that It Is technically imprac-
ticable to satisfy the details of the RCRA ground water monitoring reg-
ulations.
As discussed in §300.68(i)(5)(ill) of the National Contingency
Plan, when it is technically impracticable to comply with applicable or
relevant and appropriate Federal public health and environments! require-
ments EPA should select an alternative that' is reasonable from an en-
gineering perspective and that most closely approaches the level of
protection provided by applicable or relevant and approplate Federal
-------
9
publ1c health requirements, in th19 case the RCRA ground water monitoring
requirements. The int~nt of a monitor!n~ program at this site will be
to det~rDine if a release is occurring, which is also tr.e int!nt of the
PCRA regulatio~s.
The recomcended monitoring well network, installed during the RI,
was designed to detect a ground water relaas~. Although, b~cause of the
unusual ~~:e characteristJcs, the monitoring network does not ~trictly
meet the technical require~ents of RCRA (i.e. sampling in the natural
uppermost aquifers is not possible due to dewatering), the network will,
in a cost-eff~ctive manner, serve to detect releases from the site.
The pur~lse of the monitoring program is to determine if there is a
release above background levels. However, there are no upgradient wells
which have ~r~duced water to date (because of the aquifer dewaterin~) to
provide upgradient background data. Therefore, doJring design the validated
priority pollutant data taken from the onsit~ and downgra1ient wells,
all of which show no site related contamination, and any other appropriate
data, will be usad to establish background lev~ls. Alth~ugh this does
not stric~ly satisfy the RCRA requirements of ~~ C.F.~. S264.98, Detectio~
Monitoring, it meets the intent to the greates: extent practicable ~iven
the unusual site conditions. .
In order to protect human health and the environment, the monitoring
period should be of sufficient time to determine if a release will occur
as discussed in 40 C.F.R. S264,117(a)(2)(1) -)f the RCRA regulations.
Tais site was used as a landfill until 1968, therefore, the site has hsd
18 years to generate leachate to contaminate ground water, Since the
sampling in 1984 and 1985 found no contamination, it appears that ~he
potential for a new source of leachat~ to be generated this many yesrs
after dumping ceas~d, and thus cause gr~und water contamination. is low.
Therefore, if m~nitoring continues for five years after the surface
remedial actions are completed (until 1992 assuming the sllrface action
.15 c~mpl~ted in 1987) and no release Is detected, public health and the
environment will be adequately protected b~cause it will have been 24
years since the landfillin~ ceased and it would be reasonable to believe.
that the si te is secure. The five year monitoring pertod is also c:onststo!nt
with the five year monitoring p~riod for surface water and 5011s required
by the June 2B, 1985 Record of ~c1sion for .the surface remediation.
The monitorin~ period may be e~tended, however, if deemed necessary ~y
EPA.
Priority pollutant -"olatile organics and metals were. selected as.
indicator.. paramet~rs in order to satisfy the requirements of 40 C.F.R.
S264.98 (c). V~lat1.le organics were found in the drums prior to their
removal and have been found in the so\l. Gener~lly, they are mobile and
p~rsistent in ground water. ~etals ~ere selected because the contaminated.
soil c~.ltaiG~~ metals and metals are very persistent. Volatile organics
and n~ta1s can ~e easily det~cted at the low parts per ~illion concentr~tion
'lsin~ standard analytical methods. The S8:11,les were analyzed for these
-------
10
paramet~rs during every sa~pling round during the RI ann, thus, there
should \)e sufficient existing rlata on conc~ntr~ttons and variation to
establish a background l~vel'
As per the require~~nts of 40 C.F.R. S26~.98(d), the monitoring shall ~e
conducted semi-annually.
RESPO~SIVENESS Sl~RY
...\
On June 4, 1985 [PA held a public meeting to discuss the remedial
actions at the site. At that meeting EPA proposed to ta~e no a~tion in
regard to ground water remediation and to require a g~ound water monltori~g
p~ogram. [PA also received written comments from a steering com~(ttee
of potential responsi~le parti~s on June 10, 1985, June 14. 1985, and
June 21, 1985.
The PRP commltte~ did not object to EPA's proposal for no action in regard
to ground water remediation, but, the committee did state that toe monitoring
program described in the feasib~lity study (ie. installing additional wells
and mcnitoring for all priorir.y pollutants for the next 30 years) was Mclearly
unwarranted and unsubstantiated by the data contained in the RI/FS". The
PRPs proposed remedial action plan did not include a ground water monito~i~g
program.
EPA has fully considered the comments of the PRP committee and has retai:'1ed
the no action alternative in respect to grounJ water remediation. l~ regard
to the monitoring program, EPA has co~sidered the PRFs commenl~ and has
decided to'improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the monitoring
p~ogra~ b7 requiring a minimum of 5 years of monitoring for priority pollu:3nt
~etals and ~olatile organics using 9 of the. e~!sting monitoring wells. EPA
believes a monitoring program is ~till necessary to meet the intent of
RCRA and has technical merit because it is prudent to verify that there is
no continuing release of contaminants ~hich EPA should consiJer.
Comments from the general public favored the recomcended alternative.
[PA has selecterl the two components of the recommend~d dlternative: (1) no
action 1n regard to ground water remediatio~ and (!) a ground w~ter monitoring
program. The m...r.i toring program selected in this Record of Decision has
minor differences in technical requirements (ie. shorter ~inimu= duration)
than that discussed in the feasibility study. The differences are inte"d~d
to i:nrrove- the cost-effectiveness of the pro~ralll only. The program will
remain reasonable and sufficient to detect ground wat~r releases and will ~e
protective of public health and the environment. Th~ National Contingency
Plan would ver~it modif~cations to the monitoring prQgram (ie. longer
duration) if site conditions warranted and it became necesary for protection
of the public health and/or the environment. Therefl>re, the selected alter-
native and monitoring program is substantively equivalent to the recommended
altern3ttve.
-------
------- |